The conclusion of the argument is: "most people who hold auto insurance policies with other companies could save hundreds of dollars by switching to Popelka."
Why? We are told that in a recent survey, a sample representative of all new Popelka Auto Insurance policyholders reported savings of $250 a year, on average, as a result of switching their auto insurance coverage to Popelka.
But, isn't it likely that those who switched to Popelka where those who were posed to gain a lot of money from the switch? Thus, looking at this sample of people might not be very representative of everyone, since it is a self-selecting group.
This is exactly what answer choice (E) describes: "It fails to address adequately the possibility that people capable of saving hundreds of dollars by switching their auto insurance coverage to Popelka are disproportionately represented among the new Popelka auto insurance policyholders."
Thus answer choice (E) is our answer because it correctly identifies the unrepresentative sample flaw in the argument.
Hope that was helpful! Please let us know if you have nay other questions.
